Posted on 01/28/2009 11:36:17 AM PST by Coyoteman
We will see and hear the term “Darwinism” a lot during 2009, a year during which scientists, teachers, and others who delight in the accomplishments of modern biology will commemorate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. But what does “Darwinism” mean? And how is it used? At best, the phrase is ambiguous and misleading about science. At worst, its use echoes a creationist strategy to demonize evolution.
snip...
In summary, then, “Darwinism” is an ambiguous term that impairs communication even about Darwin’s own ideas. It fails to convey the full panoply of modern evolutionary biology accurately, and it fosters the inaccurate perception that the field stagnated for 150 years after Darwin’s day. Moreover, creationists use “Darwinism” to frame evolutionary biology as an ism or ideology, and the public understanding of evolution and science suffers as a result. True, in science, we do not shape our research because of what creationists claim about our subject matter. But when we are in the classroom or otherwise dealing with the public understanding of science, it is entirely appropriate to consider whether what we say may be misunderstood. We cannot expect to change preconceptions if we are not willing to avoid exacerbating them. A first step is eschewing the careless use of “Darwinism.”
(Excerpt) Read more at springerlink.com ...
No, it's just that you are a dishonest troll. I posted a link in #360 this thread which showed that France was funding Islamic mosques.
When I asked if this bothered you, you said "France is France's problem."
When I reiterated, pointing out that it was a logical inconsistency, you stuck to your guns.
When I repeated again, pointing out the the inconsistency marked you as a troll, and *PING*ing Jim Robinson to the thread, you engaged in ad hominem and contradicted yourself.
You could instead, for example, say that you didn't read the link in post 360 carefully : or that it just dawned on you that a principle is binding throughout the world, but you are only one person, and have to pick your battles carefully.
Don't you have any higher sense of intellectual honor than that?
For someone who is ostensibly acting as a champion of the intellectual approach...!
By the way, you never did answer what your degree was in, nor from which school.
Cheers!
Try reading the mystery novel Strong Poison by Dorothy L. Sayers. The heroine fakes a seance in order to gain the cooperation of a gullible witness.
Cheers!
Let me help your understanding. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing,.....No Thing. No time, no space, no matter. Nothing. Yet here we are. If natural forces existed, and we have zero (0) evidence of that then why would unknown forces “decide” to create anything? A decision was made to convert ‘nothing’ to something which we know as the universe. Forces don’t ‘decide’. Forces are not a mind. Yet here we are. Something separate and distinct from this time, space, matter, energy continuum made a decision to create a universe from nothing. So my question to you is,....Why is there something at all, rather than nothing?
Get it through your head: I don’t care about France.
One thing I've found to be true in life is that there is a vast, vast difference between a non-believer and a putz. When the putzes get banned for being putzes, they always figure it's because they're non-believers. If that were true, you all would have been gone years ago.
This ain't Putz Republic. Go back to DC...or better yet, DU.
Nice try.
And where did you go to school?
What was your major?
Right. Mark me as a liberal, so you don't have to face the fact that a lot of Republicans are sick and tired of the Christian fringe controlling the party.
I've voted for President Bush twice and I voted for Gov. Palin, but I must be a liberal troll from DU because I want to keep America from becoming a Christian Afghanistan.
Here are some current stats from your site:
Science News
3852 Topics
International Affairs
As you see, "Freeperama" is in 3rd place for postings in this sampling.
I've always wondered why, since the vast majority at DC have been banned or left FR in disgust, you continue to browse FR. Narcissistic tendencies perhaps?
If DC is so pro-science, I would think its' members would spend more time responding to scientific inquiries than dispraging FR.
Creationism: beliefs affirmed conforming to
While not having the antiquity is the Nicene Creed, there seems to be sufficient similarity to define a religion.
All are similar with belief in a recent world wide Noahian Flood. The core is the Flood Geology of George MacReady Price which affirmed the Young Earth Noachian Flood doctrine of Adventist prophetess Ellen G White.
Although adopted by some Evangelical Christians in the last century, the tenets of Creationism (as identified by the statements of beliefs of Creationists) are held by less than 25% of Christians within the Untied States, and maybe 5-10% outside it.
If the fossils of a rhesus were older than the fossils of the chimp, and there were no human or chimp fossils as old as the rhesus fossils, why would that be an invalid conclusion?
Gibbon was a cheese eating surrender monkey! Did the South Hampshire Militia (in which he served during the Seven Year War with France) know that?
Oh...and this sure sounds like something that would appear on a thread at DU...those of you who want to read the last line will have to highlight it; it's too foul to print in the open:
Don't you love it when the cretards and IDiots ping Daddy Jimmy?"Daddy Jimmy, Daddy Jimmy! One of those evos is here! Let's lynch 'em, Daddy Jimmy!"
Twats.
The whole "I have to save the GOP and FR from people who disagree with me" routine would be tiresome enough from someone who actually showed a little loyalty and courtesy to this site, but coming from two-faced sort like yourself it's really puketastic. I particularly like the bit where you mock people for pinging JimRob (even though you have no evidence that occurred) to beat up on people and then turn around and do the exact same thing yourself: "Daddy Jimmy, Daddy Jimmy! One of those fundies called me a bad name! You better lynch 'em, Daddy Jimmy!"
If you aren't a lib you might as well be one, because have the Olbermannesque bearing in spades. So cram your offended tone into your sigmoid colon and go back to that rock you belong under. Say "Hi" to Coyoteman for me. I'm sure he'll be glad to hear from me.
Gibbon, Monkey, get it?
(Yawns.)
Way past my bedtime, need to go to sleep.
This merely confirms it. They want attention, not reasoned discourse. And laying aside the obvious cheap shot, they have what Artemis Fowl would call 'finally, an intelligent conversation' with their compatriots on TOS. So they can't be coming here in search of intelligent conversation in the first place -- since their appetites have already been satiated elsewhere.
Disappointingly childish, for those who claim the banner of "reason uber alles".
/no, get your own umlaut!>
Cheers! ...good night morning.
The problem is that the term "Darwinism" was coined by creationists to bash the theory of evolution. This is just like the term "pro-choice" was invented by abortionists to bash people against killing babies. One has to look at the origin to see the background meaning.
Define "the people's will".
We call it "religion" because it is. It certainly is not science.
The term you’re looking for (for evoloserism) might be “ideological doctrine”.
Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole; nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that. Likewise for a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent God to suddenly determine that it would be a cool thing to do to create a universe (7000 or 17B years ago, it doesn't matter) while the idea had never occurred to him previously in the infinite expanse of time prior to that, is basically nonsensical.
The creation stories we see in the Bible and other antique literature almost certainly refer to the creation of our own living world and local environment and not to the entire universe. The universe, like God, is probably eternal.
That link I provided indicates that the list of physicists and other scientists who do not buy into "big bang" includes some of the people who run Las Alamos and other top physics labs.
I've been battling the 'evolution' of Christianity!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.